From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | karim(dot)nassar(at)acm(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What's a lot of connections? |
Date: | 2005-07-15 14:16:16 |
Message-ID: | 11126.1121436976@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 00:00 -0700, Karim Nassar wrote:
>> I am working on a system that uses postgresql 7.4.2 (can't change that
>> until 8.1 goes stable). Just figured out that there are about 285,000
>> connections created over about 11 hours every day. That averages out to
>> about 7.2 connections per second.
>>
>> Is that a lot? I've never seen that many.
> I see about 8 million connections per full day. Connecting to postgres
> is cheap.
It's not *that* cheap. I think you'd get materially better performance
if you managed to pool your connections a bit. By the time a backend
has started, initialized itself, joined a database, and populated its
internal caches with enough catalog entries to get useful work done,
you've got a fair number of cycles invested in it. Dropping the backend
after only one or two queries is just not going to be efficient.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dan Harris | 2005-07-15 15:09:37 | Re: slow joining very large table to smaller ones |
Previous Message | Chris Mair | 2005-07-15 09:17:11 | Re: PostgresSQL vs. Firebird |